Page

Monday, October 12, 2015

Yesterday,
I went to the movies to watch Ridley Scott's The
Martian.
I thoroughly enjoyed the movie and I had wanted to write a review of
the movie but Kevin Kim,
from Big Hominid, already wrote a great review for the movie, which
you ought to read for yourself here.

As
Kevin already covered more than I would have, seeing how I have never
read the book the movie was based on, I only have one additional
thing to add.

This
movie is a must-see for younger Koreans, especially considering how
popular the notion of “Hell
Joseon” has become among many of them.

This
article from Korea
Exposedescribes
those who subscribe to the notion of Hell Joseon as those who “find
no hope for South Korea; they seek only to abandon and escape the
system altogether...embodies
despair and hopelessness of the most extreme variety, the idea that
the South Korean state cannot be redeemed through effort.”

In
other words, Hell Joseon is just another incarnation of nihilism,
except that it has been served with Korean lipstick. Regardless of
the guise it has been portrayed, nihilism is the very antithesis of
the movie's core message, which was delivered by Matt Damon's
character toward the end of the movie:

“You
have to solve one problem and then solve the next problem, and then
solve the next problem, and if you solve enough problems, you get to
go home.”

This
is a lesson that many people, not just Koreans, often seem to forget.

This
discovery was made despite the NHIS's claim that no such case
existed.

I
understand why someone would want to force someone's offspring to
pay for their parents' medical bills if the parents themselves are
unable. Firstly, the government, which knows that raising taxes is
not popular, would rather that old people's medical bills be paid for
by their children. Secondly, such enforced filial piety laws are
probably easier to pass in Korea because of the lingering effects of
(near pathological) Confucian values. And finally, though I seriously
doubt it would lead to the law's intended results, the
rationale behind such laws is to create “ideal” family
relations.

However,
all of those factors might have some merit if we were discussing
people who were raised by their biological parents. These 39 people were not raised by their biological parents and I assume that their
legal ties with their biological parents ended as soon as they were
adopted by other families.

It
is my professional opinion that now is the time to give the NHIS the
finger.

That
being said, the government has long been wrestling with how to combat
Korea's aging
society, part of which is exacerbated by low
birth rates. If people can have children, legally give them up,
and still be ensured that their children will some day have to pay
for their medical bills, that could be a novel way to turn Korea's
birth rates around!

Tuesday, October 6, 2015

Recently,
a man – a senior citizen – was arrested after he was accused of
assaulting a pregnant woman because she had been sitting on one of
those seats at the ends of the subway cars that are usually occupied
by older people. This
wasn't the first time that a pregnant woman was not shown basic
human decency.

When
I first saw those pink seats, I knew that it was not going to be
terribly effective. Although people pay to ride the subway, people
don't have to pay for seats. The seats are, therefore, a type of
commons; and I am sure that everyone is aware of the Tragedy
of the Commons.

Everyone
is looking for a seat. And the seats are in short supply compared to
the number of people looking for seats. When one assumes (probably
correctly) that everyone else is going to look for a seat without
much regard for who is left standing, there isn't much room for
consideration for others.

If
it is difficult for pregnant women to find seats on the subway, then
one can only assume that the only way to find a seat in the subway is
to go full speed ahead – elbowing and maiming anyone who dares to
stand in your way – damn the torpedoes!

But
is that the only way to find a seat? I think there has to be a better
way for people to persuade others to give up their seats for the more
vulnerable members of society.

One
method that often comes up is to shame those people who refuse to
give up their seats for pregnant women or the elderly. In fact,
public shaming has been proven to be useful in many instances. In a
study that was conducted by the European Commission, it was
revealed that shaming was one of the more effective methods of
ensuring that people paid their taxes on time because, according to
the study, “the psychological costs connected with tax evasion or
financial costs other than the fine can be influential factor that
deter people from cheating. For example, psychological costs might
arise because people fear to be detected or publically shamed.”So, perhaps shaming those people who refuse to give up seats for pregnant women on social media might be effective.

However,
shaming might not be as effective as people think. Of course, the
most obvious reason why shaming might not work, especially in Korea,
is because of Korea's bizarre
defamation laws. However, even if Korea's defamation laws didn't
make such a fetish out of preserving people's honor, naming and
shaming would still not work too well. That is because according to a study that was published by the University of Chicago, shaming
someone excessively could cause the person to continue engaging in
the kind of behavior that brought about the shaming in the first
place.

To
explain, the study focused on whether or not sex offender registries
were effective. The study revealed that as sex
offenders found in the
registries were
stigmatized and shunned by society, itreduced
their job opportunities and destroyed their
social lives. As a result, the registries
effectively “lowered the opportunity cost of choosing crime over
legal activities.” In other words, this so-called “disintegrative
shaming” that resulted from the registries drove them to continue
their criminal behavior and made them more likely to recidivate.

So,
if people who sat on those reserved seats were named and shamed, and
if the naming and shaming were “excessive,” instead of learning
not to sit there in the future, they just might continue to sit there
because they might think that they have nothing left to lose.

One
method that I think is rather simple and underrated is simply asking
people for a seat.

In
many instances, people often assume the worst about each other. So,
many people might think that if we ask someone for a seat, that could
lead to a verbal assault, if not an actual assault. However, that may
be a false assumption. According
to several studies conducted by psychologists, it has been
revealed that humans are, for the most part, cooperative and selfless
– almost always willing to help one's fellow Man.

Seeing
how that the majority of people are good and decent, I think that
simply asking whether one can sit down would be more effective (and
would lead to less conflict) than simply to engage in passive
aggressive behavior.

So
what do you think? Do you think politely asking someone to give up
his or her seat is a good idea? Or do you think it's the worst idea
since techno music? Leave a comment behind and who knows? It could
lead to another blog post with you as a guest blogger.

Subscribe to

Google+ Followers

About Me

My name is John Lee and I am currently the editor and writer behind the independently-run blog, “The Korean Foreigner.”

Recently, I have also begun to work as a freelance copy editor for Freedom Factory. Here, with permission from Freedom Factory, I shall post English translations of Freedom Factory’s weekly newsletter “Freedom Voice.”